- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.104173 OF 2021 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.104714 OF 2021 IN W.P. NO.104173 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITHA, IRRIGATION (NORTH), DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMITHA, DIV. NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591107. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRBCC, SUB-DIVISION NO.1, HIDAKAL DAM-591107, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ® Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI. SHABBIR AHMED DALVAI S/O. IMAM HUSSAIN DALAVAI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. RANGASWAMY CAMP, HIDAKAL DAM-591107, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 IN APPLICATION NO.323/2011 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. IN W.P. NO.104714 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM, BELAGAVI, PIN.NO-591107. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRBCC, SUB DIVISION NO.13, HIDAKAL DAM, PIN.NO-591107. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHABBIR AHMED DALVAI S/O. IMAM HUSSAIN DALAVAI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. RANGASWAMY CAMP, HIDAKAL DAM, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, PIN.NO-591107. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, DIVISION NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, PIN.NO-591107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.323/2011 BY ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2017 in Application No.323/2011 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, the State of Karnataka and the Chief Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha have filed these two Writ Petitions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 Therefore, both the Writ Petitions were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The application was filed by the respondent herein seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the application for appointment on compassionate grounds as per Rules, 1996. 3. The admitted facts are that the father of the respondent herein, while working as a regular Group-D employee with Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha, died in harness on 07.03.1996. It is the contention of the respondent that he was a minor on the date of death of his father, he being born on 10.07.1983 and he attained majority only on 10.07.2001. The very next day after attainment of majority, the respondent filed an application on 11.07.2001 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioners herein have rejected the application by applying amended Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1999. It is also noticed by the Tribunal that though the learned counsel for the Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha contended that the application filed by the respondent herein was earlier rejected and it is stated so in the reply statement, nevertheless the rejection order was not produced along with the statement of objections. The Tribunal while placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ravikumar vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.32699/2002 dated 03.04.2003, held that the amended Rule 5 must be deemed to be prospective in operation and therefore, the Tribunal has opined that since the Government Servant died on 07.03.1996, the Rules prevalent as on the said date should be applied and since the Rules clearly permitted such an application to be made by a minor, immediately after his attaining majority and the fact that the respondent herein filed the application the very next day after the attainment of majority, the Tribunal has allowed the application while directing the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 respondents to consider the application in terms of the unamended Rules, 1996. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, including the learned Government Advocate have vehemently contended that the issue as to whether the amended provision would apply or unamended provision would apply is no more res integra, since the very same issue referred to a Larger Bench has been decided in N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and others1, and held that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for the consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would seek to place reliance on a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa2 where the decision of the 1 (2020) 7 SCC 617 2 2021 SCC OnLine 1264 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 Larger Bench in N.C. Santosh was also considered and nevertheless it was held that there is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a Rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. A Rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, was held inconceivable. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, including the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent, we find that in N.C. Santosh, which was decided by a Bench of three Judges, the appellants therein, who were appointed on compassionate grounds were later dismissed from service or their appointments were cancelled after discovery that their appointments were made dehors the provisions of the Karnataka Civil *Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as amended with effected from 01.04.1999. The Apex Court has culled out in detail the facts obtained in all the three cases before the *Corrected vide chamber order dated 07.07.2025 Sd/- (RDJ) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 Apex Court where it was found that when the Government employees died, the appellants were minors and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the parent. While referring to the chart in paragraph No.6, it was found that the dependents attained majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the time, the dependent children turn 18, the amended provisions became operational with effect from 01.04.1999. It was therefore found that the applications were filed belatedly and the same was required to be rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with the proviso to the Rule 5. It was held that the appellants applied for compassionate appointment well beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the parent and therefore, those applications should not have been entertained being in contravention of the Rules. 7. We should also notice that the Hon’ble Apex Court also found that the amended Rules were not under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 challenge. Similarly, in the present case too there is no challenge raised by the respondents to the amended provision. While applying the law governing compassionate appointment made, it was concluded by the Apex Court as follows: “19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. 20. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal's view as affirmed1 by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules will not apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments1, 3, 4 , the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 8. Although in the subsequent decision in the case of Bheemesh @ Bheemappa (supra) it was held that there is a conflict as to whether the scheme in force on the date of death of the employee would apply or the scheme in force on the date of consideration of the application of appointment on compassionate grounds would apply, it was held that there is certainly no conflict about the underlying concerns reflected in the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank and others vs. Promila and another3, N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Shrivas4 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ashish Awasthi5. 9. It would be beneficial to notice the reason for such observation in paragraph No.17 of the judgment in Bheemappa’s case. “17. Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in which this Court has 3 (2020) 2 SCC 729 4 (2020) 10 SCC 496 5 (2022) 2 SCC 157 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 proceeded to interpret the applicability of a new or modified Scheme that comes into force after the death of the employee, we may notice an interesting feature. In cases where the benefit under the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of the new Scheme. But in cases where the benefits under an existing Scheme were enlarged by a modified Scheme after the death of the employee, this Court applied only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of the employee. This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law.” 10. In that view of the matter, while applying the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court, more particularly the judgment in N.C. Santosh, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the respondent herein filed the application on 11.07.2001, beyond the period of one year contemplated in the proviso to Rule 5 in terms of the amended provision which came into effect from - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 01.04.1999, the application filed by the respondent is required to be rejected. 11. During the course of these proceedings, the learned counsel for Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A8 which was in fact filed by the respondent herein along with the application before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent has admitted the fact that his application was rejected immediately after it was filed in the year 2001. In fact, the application was rejected on 22.08.2003. It is therefore to be held that the respondent filed the application belatedly before the Tribunal in the year 2011, although the application was rejected in the year 2003 itself. Even on that ground, the application filed by the respondent is required to be rejected. 12. Consequently, we proceed to allow both the Writ Petitions while setting aside the impugned order - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7312-DB WP No. 104173 of 2021 C/W WP No. 104714 of 2021 dated 06.12.2017 in Application No.323/2011 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16